Elokistim: The sect that believes it is permissible to eat pork and violate other halacha

YNET

צפו ב"אלוקיסטיות" - החסידות שמאמינות באכילת חזיר

בראשית הייתה חב"ד. מתוכה צמח פלג שמאמין שהרבי עודנו המשיח, למרות פטירתו. ומתוך אלה צמחו האלוקיסטיות: קבוצה של חסידות, וגם חסידים, שבטוחות שהרבי חי ושהגאולה כבר כאן. ואם המשיח איתנו אז אפשר לאכול חזיר, לא לצום ביום כיפור, וגם לא להקפיד על מראה צנוע. בחסידות מתנערים מהן בתוקף, אבל הן מאמינות לחלוטין בדרכן

תשעה באב. סביב שולחן מואר בנרות יושבים בני משפחה, כיפות לראשיהם. עד כאן תיאור של סיטואציה כמעט רגילה. רק שבני המשפחה הזאת שרים, מרימים כוסית וגם אוכלים. סעודת תשעה באב. הם לא עושים זאת כדי להכעיס והם גם לא רפורמים. הם, פלג קטנטן בחסידות חב"ד, לקחו את עניין הכתרתו כמשיח של הרבי האחרון של חב"ד, מנחם מנדל שניאורסון, צעד אחד רחוק יותר. יהיו שיאמרו רחוק מדי.

קוראים להם האלוקיסטים, ויש בהם כאלה שמאמינים שמצוות כאלה בטלות משום שהמשיח כבר כאן. שרה קנייבסקי, למשל, כבר הספיקה לטעום בשר חזיר – ולא שכחה לברך. היא גם אכלה ביום הכיפורים. ואדם מבחוץ שיראה אותה יתקשה להאמין שהיא משתייכת לחסידות חב"ד, כפי שהיא מגדירה את עצמה. גם יואל קראוס, שהעלה את סרטון סעודת תשעה באב שלו לרשת, מאמין באמונה שלמה שהמשיח כבר איתנו, ולכן הקודים הדתיים שהיו נהוגים במשך שנים כבר אינם מחייבים בהכרח.

בחב"ד מזועזעים מהקבוצה הזאת. "אלו האלוקיסטיות", אמרו לי כשהגעתי לניו־יורק לפני כעשור ונתקלתי בהן לראשונה, לא רחוק מריכוז חב"ד בברוקלין, והשתתפתי בשיעור שהעבירה קנייבסקי. "אסור לך לדבר איתן. הרבנים בשכונה הורו להתעלם מהן". מאידך, קשה להתעלם מהעובדה שהן עצמן נולדו מתוך פלג משמעותי מאוד בחב"ד שמאמין שהרבי, אף שהלך לעולמו כבר ב־1994, הוא המשיח. אם תרצו, דוגמה להקצנה זוחלת כמו זו שיצרה באמצע המאה ה־17 את השבתאות, ששרידיה עדיין מתקיימים בטורקיה וכבר אינם נחשבים כלל חלק מהיהדות.

לאכול בצום בבית הכנסת

הרבי מלובאוויטש, המנהיג האחרון של חסידות חב"ד, עורר במשך שנים בקרב חסידיו את הציפייה והתשוקה לגאולה. בשנותיו האחרונות החליטו החסידים שהוא עצמו המשיח. מאז הסתלקותו לפני 22 שנים התפלגה החסידות לשני זרמים עיקריים: המתונים שבהם מצפים לגאולה ורואים בפטירת הרבי ניסיון אחרון לפני התגלותו כמלך המשיח, ואילו אנשי הפלג השני, הקיצוני יותר – המכונים "משיחיסטים" – מאמינים שהרבי לא נפטר אלא חי ממש וממשיך להנהיג אותם.

מתוך אלה קמה בעשור האחרון קבוצת האלוקיסטים, או האלוקיסטיות, שטוענים שעל-פי שיחותיו והוראותיו של הרבי הגאולה בעצם כבר התרחשה בפועל. מה זה אומר? שאפשר לשנות את המנהגים הכי בסיסיים של יהודי שומר תורה ומצוות, שהרי "מצוות בטלות לעתיד לבוא".

שרה היא אחת הנשים המרכזיות בקבוצה, שרוב אנשיה לא הסכימו להתראיין. חלקם סובלים מנידוי משפחתי, אחרים לא רוצים לעורר מחלוקת. שרה, לעומתם, מרגישה שנכון לה לדבר. היא רוצה שכל העולם יידע שהגאולה כבר כאן. "הכי היה לי קשה לאכול ביום כיפור, פחדתי ממש", היא נותנת את הדוגמה הקיצונית ביותר. "החזקתי חתיכת עוגה ביד ולא הצלחתי להכניס את היד לפה. אז פתחתי שוב את השיחה של הרבי וממנה הבנתי שהצום בטל. קראתי אותה, התבוננתי בתמונות של האדמו"רים שהיו תלויות לי כאן בסלון, ומהם קיבלתי את הכוח לאכול ביום כיפור".

כששרה מדברת על המצוות האלה, ארשת פניה רצינית. היא לא מתארת תחושת שחרור או פריקת עול אלא פחד, לצד אומץ להקריב את הערכים הכי בסיסיים ומהותיים עבורה כאישה חרדית, עבור האמונה והדרך שבחרה. אני נכנסת לביתה, לסלון אמריקני גדול, ומכל קיר ניבטת אליי תמונתו של הרבי מלובאוויטש. עיניי נחות על תמונה נוספת, של יהודי עטור זקן, בשחור־לבן. "זה אבא שלי", מספרת שרה. "הוא ישב בכלא הרוסי יחד עם אחיו 13 שנה בעוון הפצת היהדות".

היא נולדה בשם שטערנא שרה, על שם רעיית הרבי החמישי של חב"ד, למשפחה חסידית שורשית. יש לה שבעה ילדים, ועד לפני שנים אחדות היא עבדה כמורה בבית הספר של החסידות. "נולדתי בשכונה הזאת", היא אומרת. "אני זוכרת את הרבי מגיל ממש קטן. הייתי הולכת ל־770 (מקום משכנו – א"ש) בכל הזדמנות לשמוע ולראות אותו".

כמעט בכל משפט שלה נכנס הביטוי "הרבי מלך המשיח", וכשאני שואלת אותה איך הרגישה ביום פטירתו, ג' בתמוז, היא מתעלמת בקלילות. "אני ידעתי שהוא חי!" היא אומרת. "אני יודעת שזה רק ניסיון. לא הבנתי למה אנשים בוכים. רצתי לנקות את הבית והייתי בטוחה שמיד הרבי יתגלה כמשיח. היו עוד אנשים בלוויה שצעקו שהרבי חי ואפילו רקדו עם תופים".

מתי החלטת שהגאולה כבר כאן והתחלת להתנהג באופן שונה? 

"בתקופה של פינוי גוש קטיף. כל כך קיווינו שלא יפנו חלקים מארץ ישראל, ואז יצא צום י"ז תמוז בשבת פרשת בלק. למדתי את השיחה שהרבי אמר באותה שבת. הוא התייחס לזה שהצום דחוי, הביא ציטוט מהגמרא שמדבר על הבחירה אם לצום והסביר שמתקרבים יותר לזמן ששון ושמחה".

שרה פותחת ומראה לי את המסכת המדוברת. "גם רבי יהודה הנשיא ביטל את צום י"ז תמוז וניסה לבטל את צום תשעה באב, כי זו הייתה תקופה טובה לעם ישראל בתקופתו", היא אומרת, ומזכירה גם את ההסתייגות מהצומות של חכמי אותה תקופה. "את מבינה? ידעתי שאנחנו כבר בתקופת הגאולה, שהרי אין שעבוד מלכויות. אף אחד לא אוסר עלינו לקיים מצוות. אז בשביל להרגיש את הגאולה בפועל הלכתי ל־770 בצום ואכלתי גלידה דווקא שם".

אכלת בהתרסה בבית כנסת, ביום צום.

"גם ביום כיפור עשיתי את זה. באתי עם בשר, לחם וקולה שקניתי בדרך וישבתי בין הנשים המתפללות ואכלתי. היה לי קשה לעשות את זה, אבל הרגשתי שזה מה שנדרש ממני. שכולם יידעו שהגאולה כבר כאן והצומות בטלים".

 [...]

Former Attorney General Mukasey: Comey seriously erred and has saved Clinton from being charged for her email

Wall Street Journal by Former Attorney General Mukasey

We need not worry unduly about the factual void at the center of the FBI director’s announcement on Friday that the bureau had found emails—perhaps thousands—“pertinent” in some unspecified way to its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified emails while she was secretary of state.

True, we don’t know what is actually in the emails of Huma Abedin, Mrs. Clinton’s close aide, but we can nonetheless draw some conclusions about how FBI Director James Comey came to issue his Delphic notice to Congress, and what the near-term future course of this investigation will be. Regrettably, those conclusions do no credit to him, or to the leadership of the Justice Department, of which the FBI is a part.

Friday’s announcement had a history. Recall that Mr. Comey’s authority extends only to supervising the gathering of facts to be presented to Justice Department lawyers for their confidential determination of whether those facts justify a federal prosecution.

Nonetheless, in July he announced that “no reasonable prosecutor” would seek to charge her with a crime, although Mrs. Clinton had classified information on a private nonsecure server—at least a misdemeanor under one statute; and although she was “extremely careless” in her handling of classified information such that it was exposed to hacking by hostile foreign nations—a felony under another statute; and apparently had caused the destruction of emails—a felony under two other statutes. He then told Congress repeatedly that the investigation into her handling of emails was closed.

Those decisions were not his to make, nor were the reasons he offered for making them at all tenable: that prosecutions for anything but mishandling large amounts of classified information, accompanied by false statements to investigators, were unprecedented; and that criminal prosecutions for gross negligence were constitutionally suspect.

Members of the military have been imprisoned and dishonorably discharged for mishandling far less information, and prosecutions for criminal negligence are commonplace and entirely permissible. Yet the attorney general, whose decisions they were, and who had available to her enough legal voltage to vaporize Mr. Comey’s flimsy reasons for inaction, told Congress she would simply defer to the director.[...]

When the FBI learned that two of the secretary’s staff members had classified information on their computers, rather than being handed grand-jury subpoenas demanding the surrender of those computers, the staff members received immunity in return for giving them up. In addition, they successfully insisted that the computers not be searched for any data following the date when Congress subpoenaed information relating to its own investigation, and that the computers be physically destroyed after relevant data within the stipulated period was extracted.

The technician who destroyed 30,000 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails after Congress directed that they be preserved lied to investigators even after receiving immunity. He then testified that Clinton aides requested before service of the subpoena that he destroy them, and that he destroyed them afterward on his own initiative.

Why would an FBI director, who at one time was an able and aggressive prosecutor, agree to such terms or accept such a fantastic story?

The search for clues brings us to an email to then-Secretary Clinton from President Obama, writing under a pseudonym, that the FBI showed to Ms. Abedin. That email, along with 21 others that passed between the president and Secretary Clinton, has been withheld by the administration from release on confidentiality grounds not specified but that could only be executive privilege.

After disclosure of those emails, the president said during an interview that he thought Mrs. Clinton should not be criminally charged because there was no evidence that she had intended to harm the nation’s security—a showing required under none of the relevant statutes. As indefensible as his legal reasoning may have been, his practical reasoning is apparent: If Mrs. Clinton was at criminal risk for communicating on her nonsecure system, so was he.

That presented the FBI director with a dilemma that was difficult, but not complex. It offered two choices. He could have tried to proceed along the course marked by the relevant laws. The FBI is powerless to present evidence to a grand jury, or to issue grand-jury subpoenas. That authority lies with the Justice Department, headed by an attorney general who serves, as her certificate of appointment recites, “during the pleasure of the President of the United States for the time being.”

However, the director could have urged the attorney general to allow the use of a grand jury. Grand juries sit continuously in all the districts where an investigation would have been conducted, and no grand jury need have been convened to deal with this case in particular. If she refused, he could have gone public with his request, and threatened to resign if it was not followed. If she had agreed, he would have been in the happy position last week of having discovered yet further evidence that could be offered in support of pending charges. If she had refused, he could have resigned.

There is precedent within the Justice Department for that course. During what came to be known as the Saturday night massacre in 1973, Attorney General Elliot Richardson and his deputy, William Ruckelshaus, resigned rather than follow President Nixon’s order to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. Indeed, on his own telling, Mr. Comey threatened to resign as Deputy Attorney General unless the George W. Bush administration changed its electronic-surveillance program, although the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court later approved the feature to which he had objected.

Instead, Mr. Comey acceded to the apparent wish of President Obama that no charges be brought. There is precedent for that too—older and less honorable. It goes back to the 12th century when Henry II asked, “who will rid me of this troublesome priest?” The king’s eager subordinates duly proceeded to murder Archbishop Thomas Becket at the altar of Canterbury Cathedral. That choice—to follow the sovereign’s wish—left Mr. Comey facing only further dishonor if he did not disclose the newly discovered emails and they leaked after the election.

And what of the future? Mr. Comey reportedly wrote his letter to Congress over the objection of the attorney general and her deputy. Thus, regardless of what is in the newly discovered emails, the current Justice Department will not permit a grand jury to hear evidence in this case. And because only a grand jury can constitutionally bring charges, that means no charges will be brought.

Which is to say, we know enough to conclude that what we don’t know is of little immediate relevance to our current dismal situation.

The top cop who thought he was a prosecutor: The Clinton email probe

Washington Post

Beyond the precedent that the Justice Department, particularly the FBI, bends over backward not to interfere in a presidential election, there is yet another precedent, this one established during the Monica Lewinsky investigation: A holder of high office, under pressure from both Congress and the press, can lose his mind. The mind in question belonged to Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel, who back in the winter of 1997 signaled he had had more than enough of Bill Clinton, sex that wasn’t sex, a dress no longer suitable for a casual date, and other such matters and was quitting. He would repair to Pepperdine University, about as far from Washington as is continentally possible, and become dean of its law school. Then all hell broke loose.

Republican members of Congress denounced Starr for cutting and running. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), a member of the all-important Judiciary Committee, asked Starr to reconsider. William Safire, then the biggest gun on the New York Times’s op-ed page, was less judicious. His column was titled “The Big Flinch.” He called Starr a wimp who had brought “shame on the legal profession” — as if such a thing were possible. It seemed it was, and Starr retracted his resignation, stayed in Washington, hounded Clinton into impeachment and, in general, soiled a promising legal career that once had him on some shortlists for the Supreme Court.

I tell you this sad tale of opportunity missed just to illustrate how political pressure and the braying of the media can addle the minds of otherwise smart people. This is what happened to Ken Starr, and it seems to have happened to James B. Comey, the director of the FBI, although maybe not for much longer. Twice now, he has lost his bearings, stepped out of his role as top cop and decided he was prosecutor instead. In July, he announced that the FBI had concluded its investigation into the Hillary Clinton email server and found nothing worth prosecuting. He did find that her handling of her emails had been “extremely careless,” which was true, but was the sort of judgment that pundits like me get to make, not lofty FBI directors whose personal — even professional — opinions should be saved for their memoirs.

For recommending against indictment, Comey was vilified by the right, particularly by Donald Trump. Others had a different criticism: Comey should have said nothing at all. The decision to prosecute is made by the Justice Department, not the FBI, and it was not his place to chastise Clinton, who, if I may be permitted an observation, certainly deserved it. Now Comey has announced that the investigation that seemed closed remains open. He announced this less than two weeks before Election Day, virtually reviving a dormant Trump campaign. “Bigger than Watergate,” Trump observed.

What’s going on? We don’t know. An astounding 650,000 emails were found by the FBI on the laptop belonging to Anthony Weiner, the now-estranged (and always strange) husband of Huma Abedin, Clinton’s No. 1 aide. This could be a device that Weiner allegedly used to send filthy pictures of himself to women both young and old, one purportedly a mere 15. It’s possible the emails are duplicates of what the FBI has already seen on Clinton’s private server or — G-men beware — maybe half a million Weiner selfies. (You cannot out-weird this story.)

From the very start, I’ve felt that this whole business of Clinton’s email server has been ridiculously hyped. She shouldn’t have done it. Granted. She’s hiding something. Granted. She’s even hiding that she’s hiding something. But she didn’t commit treason, and the nation’s security has not been endangered as far as we know, and all this mucking around in the personal emails of public figures has gone too far. If there’s no crime, let’s move on. The threat is not Clinton and her BlackBerry, but the Russians and their military-industrial-hacking complex.

But Comey, buffeted from both sides and possessed of a fiery moralism, has now possibly thrown the election into doubt. What’s this all about, Jim? We — the voters — need to know. (Actually, I can’t imagine learning anything that would get me to vote for Trump.) Still, some voters are undecided. Both candidates have the negative ratings of bill collectors. Now that Comey has broken established practice and intruded into the elections, he needs to say why — what did his agents glimpse in that laptop that made him throw both judgment and precedent to the wind? It better be good or else he should do what Starr in the end didn’t: quit.

Government backed bill to stop Internet Pornagraphy by blocking them by default

Haaretz

A ministerial panel on Sunday voted to give government backing to a bill that would require internet service providers to block access to pornographic websites, as well as other sites defined as offensive, by default.

To remove the block, a customer will be required to contact the internet provider. If approved, the bill would result in the creation of lists of internet users requesting access pornographic sites.

The bill is sponsored by 26 Knesset members from parties across the political divide. Only MKs from Meretz refused to support the proposed law.

The bill’s chief sponsor is MK Shuli Moalem-Refaeli (Habayit Hayehudi), along with MKs from the Zionist Union, Kulanu, Joint List, Yesh Atid, Shas, United Torah Judaism, Yisrael Beiteinu, Habayit Hayehudi and Likud.

The bill would require ISPs to supply a free-of-charge filter against offensive websites and content. Any customer wishing to remove the filter will be required to make a request in writing, by telephone or through the company’s website.

“The damaging influence of watching, and addiction to, pornographic and severe violence has been proven in many studies, with great harm to children. Today, it is easier for a child to consume harsh content on the internet than to buy an ice cream at the local kiosk,” said Moalem-Refaeli. “We must prevent such access by making the default of the internet provider to filter such content, unless the customer has asked to be exposed to it,” she added. [...]

Former Attorney Generals Gonzales, Holder and Mukasey slam FBI directories Email announcment

CNN  [this is dedicated to those who claim the criticism of Comey is a left wing conspiracy]

Alberto Gonzales

Republican former US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Monday slammed the FBI director's recent actions in the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email server.

He called Comey's actions an "error in judgment" and said he is "somewhat perplexed about what the director was trying to accomplish here."

Gonzales said Comey's letter Friday informing lawmakers that the FBI is reviewing new emails potentially related to its investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server as secretary of state breaks from long-standing Justice Department practice. The protocol is not to comment on investigations and to stay silent on politically sensitive matters less than 60 days from an election.

"You don't comment on investigations because commenting on the investigation may jeopardize the investigation. And that's the box that he's put himself in, because people are now calling for more information -- for release of the emails," Gonzales told CNN's John Berman and Kate Bolduan on "At This Hour."

He was the third former attorney general to recently and publicly criticize Comey.

Gonzales, who served in the George W. Bush administration, said Comey wouldn't have been misleading voters by withholding the news until after November 8.[...]

Eric Holder

Former Attorney General Eric Holder also criticized Comey's decision Monday. Writing in The Washington Post on Monday, Holder called Comey's decision "incorrect."

Obama's first attorney general said Comey's letter to Congress announcing a review of the new emails was "a stunning breach" of law enforcement protocol and one that carried "potentially severe implications" during a presidential campaign.

"I served with Jim Comey, and I know him well. This is a very difficult piece for me to write. He is a man of integrity and honor. I respect him. But good men make mistakes. In this instance, he has committed a serious error with potentially severe implications," Holder wrote.

"It is incumbent upon him -- or the leadership of the department -- to dispel the uncertainty he has created before Election Day. It is up to the director to correct his mistake — not for the sake of a political candidate or campaign but in order to protect our system of justice and best serve the American people." [...]

Michael Mukasey

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey also slammed Comey's decision in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. Mukasey, who served under George W. Bush after Gonzalez, called Comey's original decision in July not to indict the Democratic presidential candidate "unworthy." He described the decision as one to "accede to the apparent wish of Obama that no charges be brought against Clinton."

As such, he claimed this earlier move makes Comey's letter to Congress irrelevant.

"Regardless of what is in the newly discovered emails, the current Justice Department will not permit a grand jury to hear evidence in this case. And because only a grand jury can constitutionally bring charges, that means no charges will be brought," Mukasey wrote. "Which is to say, we know enough to conclude that what we don't know is of little immediate relevance to our current dismal situation."

On Clinton Emails, Did the F.B.I. Director Abuse His Power?

NY Times

THE F.B.I. is currently investigating the hacking of Americans’ computers by foreign governments. Russia is a prime suspect.

Imagine a possible connection between a candidate for president in the United States and the Russian computer hacking. Imagine the candidate has business dealings in Russia, and has publicly encouraged the Russians to hack the email of his opponent. It would not be surprising for the F.B.I. to include this candidate and his campaign staff in its confidential investigation of Russian computer hacking.

But it would be highly improper, and an abuse of power, for the F.B.I. to conduct such an investigation in the public eye, particularly on the eve of the election. It would be an abuse of power for the director of the F.B.I., absent compelling circumstances, to notify members of Congress that the candidate was under investigation. It would be an abuse of power if F.B.I. agents went so far as to obtain a search warrant and raid the candidate’s office tower, hauling out boxes of documents and computers in front of television cameras.

The F.B.I.’s job is to investigate, not to influence the outcome of an election.

Such acts could also be prohibited under the Hatch Act, which bars the use of an official position to influence an election. That is why the F.B.I. presumably would keep those aspects of an investigation confidential until after the election. The usual penalty for a violation is termination of federal employment.

That is why, on Saturday, I filed a complaint against the F.B.I. with the Office of Special Counsel, which investigates Hatch Act violations, and with the Office of Government Ethics. I spent much of my career working on government and lawyers’ ethics, including as the chief White House ethics lawyer for George W. Bush. I never thought that the F.B.I. could be dragged into a political circus surrounding one of its investigations. Until this week.

(For the sake of full disclosure, in this election I have supported Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich and Hillary Clinton for president, in that order.)

On Friday, the director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey, sent members of Congress a letter about developments in the agency’s investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s emails, an investigation which supposedly was closed months ago. This letter, which was quickly posted on the internet, made highly unusual public statements about an F.B.I. investigation concerning a candidate in the election. The letter was sent in violation of a longstanding Justice Department policy of not discussing specifics about pending investigations with others, including members of Congress. According to some news reports, the letter was sent before the F.B.I. had even obtained the search warrant that it needed to look at the newly discovered emails. And it was sent days before the election, when many Americans are already voting.

Violations of the Hatch Act and of government ethics rules on misuse of official positions are not permissible in any circumstances, including in the case of an executive branch official acting under pressure from politically motivated members of Congress. Violations are of even greater concern when the agency is the F.B.I.

It is not clear whether Mr. Comey personally wanted to influence the outcome of the election, although his letter — which cast suspicion on Mrs. Clinton without revealing specifics — was concerning. Also concerning is the fact that Mr. Comey already made unusual public statements expressing his opinion about Mrs. Clinton’s actions, calling her handling of classified information “extremely careless,” when he announced this summer that the F.B.I. was concluding its investigation of her email without filing any charges.

But an official doesn’t need to have a specific intent — or desire — to influence an election to be in violation of the Hatch Act or government ethics rules. The rules are violated if it is obvious that the official’s actions could influence the election, there is no other good reason for taking those actions, and the official is acting under pressure from persons who obviously do want to influence the election.[...]

Chareidi boy attacked on Simchas Torah in Neve Yaakov by someone who appeared to be Chareidi

Kikar HaShabbat

בצהרי חג שמחת תורה: ילד חרדי נחטף והותקף באכזריות

ילד חרדי נחטף במהלך חג שמחה תורה בשכונת נווה יעקב בצפון ירושלים והותקף באכזריות על ידי גבר בעל חזות חרדית. התושבים החרדים בשכונה חוששים ממקרי תקיפה נוספים (חדשות, חרדים)

אימה בשכונת נווה יעקב: ילד חרדי נחטף במהלך חג שמחה תורה בשכונת נווה יעקב בצפון ירושלים, והותקף באכזריות על ידי גבר זר בעל חזות חרדית, התוקף טרם נתפס. כך נודע ל"כיכר השבת".

על פי הפרטים שנודעו ל"כיכר השבת", האירוע התרחש בצהרי החג. הילד, שעשה את דרכו לביתו, נתפס על ידי גבר שחבש כיפה כחולה ונעליים חומות. האחרון אחז את הילד בחוזקה, הרים אותו וגרר אותו לחצר בית שבעליו לא שהו בארץ.

לאחר שחטף אותו וסחב אותו לחצר, התוקף פגע בילד באכזריות ונמלט מהמקום. לאחר התקיפה, הילד פתח בריצה וברח לביתו, שם שיחזר בפני הוריו את התקיפה האכזרית.

ההורים מיהרו להתלונן במשטרה וחוקרי ילדים גבו עדות מהילד החרדי המותקף. יצוין כי עד כה התוקף טרם נעצר, אך בידי המשטרה ישנם קצי חוט באשר לזהות התוקף.

יצוין, כי בשנה האחרונה החלו תושבי נווה יעקב להתקין מצלמות אבטחה בחדרי מדרגות בכדי למנוע מקרים מסוג זה ולזהות תוקפים מסוכנים.

"יש פחד בשכונה" מספר אחד מתושביה: "יש לא מעט מקרים שילדים מותקפים, אבל עכשיו זה כבר משהו רציני, חטפו ילד בכוח בצהריי היום, תקפו אותו באכזריות רבה... נהיה מפחיד לשלוח את הילדים לבית כנסת, אנחנו מקווים שיתפסו את התוקף במהרה".

Ari Shavit, Celebrated Israeli Columnist, Resigns After Sexual Harassment Accusations

NY Times  The author Ari Shavit attained international celebrity with a deeply introspective look at Israel’s remarkable rise and its controversial moments. With passion and authority, he helped make it possible for many liberal supporters of Israel to admire the nation while questioning its policies.

Accused of sexual harassment, Mr. Shavit resigned on Sunday as one of Israel’s most influential newspaper columnists and television commentators, promising to rethink how he approaches other people, especially women.

“In the last few days I have understood that I have been afflicted by blindness,” Mr. Shavit said in a statement published by Haaretz, the leading left-of-center newspaper, for which he wrote a widely read column. “For years I did not understand what people meant when they spoke of privileged men who do not see the damage that they cause to others. Now, I am beginning to understand.”

The woman who complained that Mr. Shavit, who is married, had tried to force her to kiss him in a hotel lobby two years ago praised him for taking responsibility.

“I’m grateful for Ari Shavit’s powerful honest statement,” the woman, Danielle Berrin, a writer for The Jewish Journal, wrote on Twitter. “His resolution to do ‘heshbon hanefesh’ — an accounting of the soul — is admirable.”

The unexpected fall from grace of one of Israel’s most prominent figures shocked his admirers both here and in the United States. In effect, it was unexpected collateral damage from the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump. Ms. Berrin wrote about her encounter with Mr. Shavit to make a point about sexual harassment, after similar accusations were made against Mr. Trump.

But unlike Mr. Trump, Mr. Shavit acknowledged wrongdoing and did not attack his accuser’s truthfulness. A harsh critic of the Republican presidential candidate in his column, Mr. Shavit told people close to him that he was genuinely remorseful and determined to respond in a way opposite to that of Mr. Trump.

“I am ashamed of the mistakes I made with regards to people in general and women in particular,” he said in his public statement on Sunday. “I am embarrassed that I did not behave correctly to my wife and children. I am embarrassed about the consequences of what I did.” [...]

FBI re-opens email probe against established practice just before elections - No claims of damaging evidence just new material

NBC NEWS   [Wall Street Journal for background]

The FBI obtained a warrant to search emails related to the probe of Hillary Clinton's private server that were discovered on ex-congressman Anthony Weiner's laptop, law enforcement officials confirmed Sunday.

The warrant came two days after FBI Director James Comey revealed the existence of the emails, which law enforcement sources said were linked to Weiner's estranged wife, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin. The sources said Abedin used the same laptop to send thousands of emails to Clinton.

The FBI already had a warrant to search Weiner's laptop, but that only applied to evidence of his allegedly illicit communications with an underage girl.

Agents will now compare the latest batch of messages with those that have already been investigated to determine whether any classified information was sent from Clinton's server.

Comey's disclosure included few details about what the emails contained. In a letter to Congress, he said the FBI learned "of the existence of e-mails that appear to be pertinent" to the Clinton probe, but he added that the agency "cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant."

The revelation ignited fierce criticism. Citing the longstanding practice of avoiding even the appearance of acting in a manner that could tip the political scales, former Justice Department spokesman Matt Miller said that "most people, when they hear that the FBI is involved, automatically assume the negative."

Clinton called the move an "unprecedented" departure from FBI policy, and on Sunday, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid scolded Comey for potentially breaking the law.

"Your actions in recent months have demonstrated a disturbing double standard for the treatment of sensitive information, with what appears to be clear intent to aid one political party over another," the letter says. "I am writing to inform you that my office has determined that these actions may violate the Hatch Act."

The act bars government officials from using their authority to influence elections.

Reid also accused Comey of shielding Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump from scrutiny over his connections to Russia, saying "it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination" between Trump and his advisers and the Russian government.

The FBI didn't immediately respond to requests for comment on Reid's letter. Earlier, Comey said in an internal message to FBI employees that "we don't ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed."

The note added that it would "be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record. At the same time, however, given that we don't know the significance of this newly discovered collection of e-mails, I don't want to create a misleading impression."

Could a Diabetes Drug Help Beat Alzheimer's Disease?

Scientifici American

Most of the 20 million people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in the U.S. take metformin to help control their blood glucose. The drug is ultrasafe: millions of diabetics have taken it for decades with few side effects beyond gastrointestinal discomfort. And it is ultracheap: a month's supply costs $4 at Walmart. And now new studies hint that metformin might help protect the brain from developing diseases of aging, even in nondiabetics.

Diabetes is a risk factor for neurodegenerative diseases, but using metformin is associated with a dramatic reduction in their incidence. In the most comprehensive study yet of metformin's cognitive effects, Qian Shi and her colleagues at Tulane University followed 6,000 diabetic veterans and showed that the longer a patient used metformin, the lower the individual's chances of developing Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and other types of dementia and cognitive impairment. In line with some of the previous, smaller studies of long-term metformin use, patients in the new study who used the drug longer than four years had one quarter the rate of disease as compared with patients who used only insulin or insulin plus other antidiabetic drugs—bringing diabetics' risk level to that of the general population. The findings were presented in June at the American Diabetes Association's Scientific Sessions meeting.

Even in the absence of diabetes, Alzheimer's patients often have decreased insulin sensitivity in the brain, says Suzanne Craft, a neuroscientist who studies insulin resistance in neurodegenerative disease at the Wake Forest School of Medicine. The association has led some people to call Alzheimer's “type 3 diabetes.” Insulin plays many roles in the brain—it is involved in memory formation, and it helps to keep synapses free of protein debris, including the tau tangles and amyloid plaques that build up in Alzheimer's, Craft says.

Metformin, then, may help correct insulin issues in the aging brain. Research in animals shows that the drug's effect on neural stem cells might be key. Neuroscientists Jing Wang and Freda Miller, both then at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, showed that when nondiabetic mice are given metformin, their memory improves, thanks to an increase in the neural stem cell population and in the number of these cells that develop into healthy neurons in the hippocampus, the brain's memory center.

Human clinical trials also show promise in treating early Alzheimer's. Steven E. Arnold, a neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital showed that early Alzheimer's patients had small but significant improvements in their memory and cognitive functioning after taking metformin for eight weeks as compared with a placebo. Brain imaging also revealed some improvements in neural metabolism. Such small effects are the norm when it comes to Alzheimer's; even established drugs are only modestly effective and only for a limited period. “That is one of the great motivations to find new therapies,” Craft says.[...]

Convicted sex offender Stefan Colmer is planning to move to Jerusalem in November according to Jewish Community Watch

Jewish Community Watch has received credible information that Stefan Colmer has plans to return to Israel in early November, with intentions of moving to the Ramot neighborhood in Jerusalem. The authorities in Israel have been notified, as well as local community leaders.

In 2007, Stefan Colmer had escaped to Israel through Canada in an effort to evade arrest from the police in NY. He was formally charged in absentia with 8 counts of deviate sexual intercourse with two 13 year old minors on the same day that his aliyah status was approved. Months later Colmer was extradited back to NY where he was convicted in 2009 and served time until his release in February 2012.

Currently Colmer still holds Israeli citizenship under the alias Dovid Cohen.

Please share widely and act responsibly to protect our communities children.

אזהרה לתושבי ישראל

JCW קיבל מידע ממקור אמין שסטפן קולמר מתכנן לחזור לארץ בתחילת נובמבר, בכוונתו לגור בשכונת רמות בירושלים. הרשויות וראשי הקהילות עודכנו.

בשנת 2007 סטפן קולמר ברח לישראל דרך קנדה על מנת להינצל ממעצר בניו יורק. קולמר הואשם ב8 מעשי אונס עם שתי קטינים בני 13 באותו יום שמעמדו כעולה נכנס לתוקף. כעבור כמה חודשים הוסגר לניו יורק ושם הורשע ב2009 ושם ביצע את מעצרו עד לשחרורו מהכלא בשנת 2012.

כעת קולמר עדיין מחזיק באזרחות ישראלית בשם הבדוי שלו "דוד כהן".

נא לשתף מידע זו לציבור על מנת לדאוג לבטיחות ילדנו בצורה האחראית ביותר.

Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter: What Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky needs to do to rectify this unholy mess

1) Rav Kaminetsky needs to to make a public announcement that the Heter that he and his son engineered is invalid. It is not sufficient that his son write a letter saying he agrees with Rav Dovid Feinstein - even if he posts it on the Internet. Rav Shmuel needs to make it clear that he agrees with the many poskim that it never was valid because the facts used in the Heter are simply not true and even if they were they don't justify a heter according to Rav Moshe Feinsein. He needs to state that this is not a machlokess haposkim but is universally agreed.

It would be helpful if he clearly state that this type of heter is not appropriate unless there is clear, verifiable evidence presented to the truth of the allegations and that the evidence clearly meets Rav Moshe Feinstein's requirements. A full beis din of internationally recognized poskim needs to sign the psak which should be made public. The experts who testify need to be clearly and publicly identified and their evidence needs to be based on direct contact with the parties. The beis din must hear both sides from the husband and wife.

A handwritten letter will suffice - though it would be nice if a video was made public

2) He needs to state unequivocally that he has told Tamar and Adam to separate and that he has told Rav Greenblatt that the evidence he and his son presented him is not valid and that Rav Greenblatt needs to retract his psak

3) He needs to publicly apologize to Aharon Friedman for the grief that he has caused him and that he had no right to try and override the authority of the Baltimore Beis Din.

Mike McQueary Is Awarded $7.3 Million in Penn State Defamation Case

NY Times

A Pennsylvania jury on Thursday, in a defamation case against Penn State University, awarded $7.3 million to Mike McQueary, the former assistant football coach who in 2001 told Coach Joe Paterno that he had witnessed Jerry Sandusky sexually abusing a child in the locker room shower.

The jury, which deliberated for about four hours, found that Penn State had defamed McQueary with a statement in 2011 defending its former athletic director and vice president against a charge of perjury related to what McQueary said he had told them about Sandusky, a longtime defensive coordinator at Penn State.

Judge Thomas Gavin, who presided in the case, still has to rule on McQueary’s accusation that Penn State retaliated against him after he testified at Sandusky’s 2012 trial. McQueary was not allowed to coach at Penn State’s first game after Paterno was fired in connection with the scandal, in 2011, and McQueary’s contract was not renewed.

Even before Thursday’s ruling, the scandal had already cost Penn State well over $100 million in N.C.A.A. penalties, legal fees and settlements to victims of Sandusky’s sexual abuse. Sandusky was convicted in 2012 of sexually abusing 10 boys and was sentenced to 30 to 60 years in prison.

McQueary testified to a grand jury in 2010 that in 2001 he told Paterno, and later Athletic Director Tim Curley and the university vice president Gary Schultz, that he had witnessed the abuse. The testimony helped prosecutors eventually charge Sandusky, who is now 72.

The Pennsylvania attorney general subsequently charged Curley and Schultz with perjury after they told a grand jury that McQueary did not tell them Sandusky had committed something as serious as sexual abuse. The perjury charge was dismissed, but Schultz, Curley and Graham B. Spanier, the former university president, still face criminal charges of failure to report suspected child abuse and endangering the welfare of children. [...]

McQueary’s testimony in December 2011 helped show that Paterno, one of the most successful and beloved coaches in college football history, had heard that Sandusky had abused a boy at least a decade before Sandusky’s behavior became publicly known. Court documents released this summer showed that Paterno heard such an allegation as early as 1976. 

Beit Shemesh man allegedly molests young girls who came to help clean the house while his wife was in the hospital.

Arutz 7

An act of kindness by neighbors looking to help was repaid in the cruelest fashion, when a father took advantage of his wife’s absence from the home to allegedly sexually molest two young girls.

The alleged incident took place in a haredi neighborhood of Beit Shemesh, west of Jerusalem.

The mother of the family in question had recently given birth, and was still in the hospital. During her hospital stay, neighbors of the family sent two young girls, ages 11 and 12, to help out with chores.

According to haredi website BeHadrei Haredim, the father was supposed to be out of the house at the time, but was in fact there when the two girls arrived.

After the girls cleaned his house, the man allegedly began to molest them

One of the girls, however, managed to escape and notify her mother of what had transpired. The girls’ mother quickly arrived, took her other daughter, and called the police. [...]